Appeal No. 2004-0644
Application No. 09/222,209
not find a specific definition of the term “structure“ in the specification. Although we do
not find a specific definition to the term “structure,” we find that Capps teaches the use
of surrogate data/elements which are based on the input data and not on any
structure. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness for a surrogate structure, and we will not sustain the rejection of claims
2, 3, 9, 10, 12 and 13 which contain the limitation regarding a surrogate structure.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 4-8, 11, 14, and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims
2, 3, 9, 10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007